Category Archives: Social Conventions

In light of the Feminine Imperative having itself capsized over the UVa rape fantasy retracted by Rolling Stone this month, I was reminded of this video and post by Heartiste (Roissy) a few years ago:

Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.

Heartiste goes on to make the prerequisite Game principle & application observations here, but there is a much larger dynamic in play. While the mall makes for a good setting to test this experiment, it is fairly isolated. A security detail gets assigned to “Thomas Eliot” and even some shops close in order to avoid a crowd panic, but could this dynamic be proven on a larger scale?

This is a very interesting social experiment, particularly when compared to the now infamous (and staged) viral video of Shoshana Roberts walking around New York and enduring the attentions of men she found less than savory. Interesting because they’re essentially trolling for attention from the opposite sex with similar methods, and the results are telling about how each gender perspective generates and reacts to that attention.

Darryl Long made a comment on this topic, and I’ve been considering it for a while now:

On this topic of how women’s attraction changes across their lifetimes I don’t think any analysis is complete without looking at the phenomena of teen-idols. As a man who has sisters and daughters its clear that there is something biological going on with pubescent girls in a way that is radically different from boys. Boys may fantasize about a poster girl, but they never fall over themselves for heartthrobs like Bieber, or Lief Garret, and David Cassidy (in the old days). I’m amazed that many of these teen heartthrobs are more on the fair/effeminate side than masculine. They look like they have good genes, but the most important thing is that all the other girls like them. They are male figures that girls lend incredible status making them even more attractive.

Preselection is a very powerful motivator of women’s hypergamous decision making process. Even the perception of fame (or even the potential for it) is a prime motivator and incentive to lock down a man who presents the hypergamous optimal ideal – a guy who satisfies the sexiness her Alpha Fucks hypergamous needs require and the long term security of provisioning potential from status-confirmed Beta Bucks.

Whether this “famous” guy actually embodies this ideal is irrelevant to a woman’s Id-centric psyche. When women are younger, tweens and teens, this self-convincing is much easier since girls lack any real world experience to reference with respect to what the guy really represents. A capacity for abstract thinking is something that develops as we mature, but the desire to optimize hypergamy is a limbic, instinctual drive for girls and no amount of reasoning can compete with the fantasy of a pre-fabricated idealized Hypergamy.

They want to believe it.

Thus we have hordes of girls and young women willing to go to behavioral lengths they would never consider with the mundane men they’re familiar with in order to just brush with the possibility of that hypergamous ideal. They will literally climb over one another to realize this.

In a Game sense, preselection (and prequalification or 3rd party endorsement) is a very powerful, instinctual impetus for women. Even in marginal, isolated social settings preselection is an overriding imperative:

Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. – Roissy

Once you have a basic understanding of the preselection dynamic and how it is an evolved feature of women’s psychological firmware, the next step is to understand how the power of preselection influences women (and by association men) when scaled to a feminine social dynamic.

Roissy notes from the first video:

Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity.

As I’ve noted in prior posts, perceptions are the overriding imperative of the feminine psyche. It’s not that women on an individual level don’t possess the faculties to discern legitimate social proof, it’s that on a social level they want to believe in that social proof. The estimation of the collective feminine mindset is a powerful influence on the individual woman since it plays on that non-abstract, instinctual need for a pre-verification of optimal hypergamy.

In other words, the effort of sexual-selection vetting has already been done for them by the feminine hivemind.

Verifying legitimate social proof takes individual time and effort. Perhaps not as much as men have a rational capacity for (the New York stunt fooled more than a few tag-along guys affirming the pseudo-social proof), but for women that opportunity for meeting a hypergamously ideal man supersedes the mental efforts needed to verify social proof. The greater mass of women already believe in the preselection and the intersexual competition is on and overt.

I’ve made the distinction before with regards to women’s preferred communications methods; covert communication being women’s native language, but when women resort to overt communications it’s generally because the content of the information needing to be transferred outweighs the need for how it’s delivered, or the context of that information.

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

And like the women who never had an afterthought as to whether “Thomas Eliot” was the real deal, likewise women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

From Truth to Power:

Denial

The first step to really unplugging from our preconditioning (i.e the feminine Matrix) is recognizing that this conditioning has led to the beliefs we think are integral to our personalities. The psychological term for this is called ‘ego-investment’. When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an integral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. This is why we see such a violent reaction to people’s political, religious, inter-social/inter-sexual, inter-gender, etc. expressions of belief – they perceive it as a personal attack, even when presented with irrefutable, empirical evidence that challenges the veracity of those beliefs.

People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof. Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.

One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence, your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self-doubt, however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Attribute it to an outside element rather than resort to introspection.

This degree of core-level denial is where the likes of Jessica Valenti, Susan Walsh and Zerlina Maxwell find themselves today.

In spite of still growing confirmation that the story was a hoax, femosphere bloggers hold out hope against hope that even the smallest part of a medieval-like rape story to rival Silence of the Lambs could be true.

The pivot for this will of course be how the falsehood injures women who genuinely are rape victims, but this is just the shiny keys jingling to distract anyone sympathetic to their ego-investments from the fact that they wanted to believe this story was legitimate.

They wanted to believe it without an afterthought of critical analysis.

They wanted to believe it in spite of the obvious melodramatic dialogue described by “Jackie”.

They wanted to believe a naive freshmen girl could be frat boy initiation raped for three hours on the shards of glass from a broken glass table and never seek medical treatment or have anyone raise an eyebrow over the bloody mess that her back must’ve looked like as she nonchalantly walked out of the party house.

They wanted and still hope that even the most marginal parts of the story might be true. They want any shred of hope that will distract from the fact that they must now confront their complete acceptance of this obvious farce without any compunction of critical thinking.

They all have to face the fact that their presumption of male guilt comes before any logic or reason. This is the uniquely feminine hysteria that even men will invest themselves into if it means they can more positively identify with the Feminine Imperative.

Many PUAs have at one point encountered and considered what’s commonly known as LMR, Last Minute Resistance after they’ve successfully moved through the various phases of seduction and had a girl reconsider fucking him and ultimately reject him at the zero hour before sex was in the offing.

LMR is the acronym PUAs gave to the tendency, but you don’t need to be a PUA to have had the experience of pleading your case for sex while spooning on the bed with a girl you’ve been trying to ‘make comfortable enough’ to want to fuck you using your best Beta Game for two months. I’d say blue pill men are much more familiar with LMR than most self-styled PUAs.

I’ll admit, I did this in my younger Beta days.

This was long before I realized that sex was about urgency, anxiety and tension, not comfort, familiarity or rapport, or proving how much better a boyfriend I’d make than the Jerks she’d enthusiastically spread her legs for because they naturally created that urgency.

It wasn’t until I’d hit my sexual stride in my semi-pro rock star 20s that I realized that striving to make a girl feel comfort and trust was anti-seductive.

Eventually I got to the point that I could get laid predictability enough with girls who were enthusiastically down to fuck, that I no longer felt the responsibility to endure the blue balls I had in trying to behave according to how girls ‘told’ me I should go about being intimate with other girls.

It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves). I realized how adolescent this really was; these are games teenage girls played with guys who’s attentions they enjoyed, but couldn’t bear the thought of fucking someone they were so familiar with. I figured out that when a woman says, “I don’t think of you in that way. I think of you as a brother.”, what she’s really saying is “I’d consider sex with you to be incest”.

I didn’t know it then, but this was an important lesson in my red pill education.

I’ve never been an advocate for pushing past last minute resistance with a woman. From that point on in my life if there was any hesitancy on the part of a woman becoming sexual with me, and certainly once clothes were about to come off, I knew something else was affecting the needed sexual tension and urgency. Something else was mitigating genuine desire and I knew it wouldn’t be the kind of sex I wanted to have, or couldn’t already have had a better experience with another plate I was spinning at the time.

I get that for a lot of guys, “pushing” for sex – really trying to wait a girl out for sex – is the only Game they really have to speak of. However, I’d gotten to the point where I realized that any sex a woman makes a guy wait for is negotiated desire and mitigated sex, and the experience was never worth the wait.

I learned how to do very effective takeaways during this point in my life, but not because they were practiced to perfection from a want to bang a particular woman. Rather, and unintentionally, I had what PUAs termed a very good ‘push/pull’ technique due only to the fact that I knew if a new girl I was with was hesitant to get sexual I was wasting time I could’ve spent with another girl who was a proven commodity.

Women pick up on cues like this. Men are often oblivious to them, but there are subtle differences in our behaviors, indifferences to women’s expected behaviors from us, and subtle attitudes we sub-communicate which women are attuned to thanks to an evolved psychological understanding of when they have a sexual competitor for our attentions. Women who have a genuine interest in a guy, rarely confuse that guy with “mixed messages“.

I didn’t consciously process it then, but an overt attempt to overcome last minute resistance broadcasts a perception of ‘pussy begging’ in an obvious way. While I realize there’re sometimes situations that call for a need to be sexually assertive to promote a dominance women are testing for, if you’re in a position of what amounts to pleading or “c’mon baby” convincing a girl to fuck you, you’re negotiating (really compromising yourself) for her unenthusiastic desire.

When you overextend yourself in getting past LMR, you risk sending the message that “you just don’t get it” with regard to how women need to be seduced, and how the men they do want to fuck organically behave. By being too self-effacing in convincing a woman to fuck you, you present the perception of being optionless with other women, and thus a non-sexual Beta and she can deal with you, or not deal with you, accordingly.

It was really simple pragmatism for me to walk away from a sexual dead end girl – I had other options – but in doing so I’d unwittingly, but organically, passed a shit test. And more often than not I got laid a week or two after “bumping into” her again; after she’d had time to process it.

Game 101

Now, why am I going back to Game 101 here?

Likely this is something I should’ve included in the book, or come about to in the early posts of Rational Male (I have actually, but not in depth). Well, it’s because of a pathetically brief throwaway post from Lindy West praising the recent Yes Means Yes law on California campuses.

West usually wrote feminist agitprop before she was surreptitiously let go from Jezebel a few months ago, and rest assured this is the first and last time I’ll ever quote her on this blog, but in her giddy sputtering over the YMY law she did manage one coherent point:

“Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”

Following along in the wake of the Yes Means Yes social initiative, many a feminized blogger has gone through a good deal of mental contortions in order to rationalize why they support it. The problem they encounter is that in supporting YMY they have to explain away more than a few previously, and publicly, held stands they made in the past about gender relations to align with YMY.

One such inconsistency stems from women’s dubious want for comfort and rapport prior to sex that conflicts with what, essentially, amounts to negotiating for their genuine desire. Thus, I agree with Lindy, why would you want to be tolerated, when you could be desired?

What Lindy is oblivious to (no doubt from a lack of experiencing male attention) is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated for. Many a hapless Beta suffering in a ‘tolerance’ relationship is all too familiar with the lackluster experience of ‘duty sex’. Women will bemoan some fanciful epidemic of misogynists who think they’re entitled to, or owed sex, but the fact of the matter is the same women actively contribute to that belief by (legally now) requiring a checklist of terms necessary for men to have sex with them.

When I published Iron Rule of Tomassi #3 I received (and periodically still receive) a rash of criticism from the femosphere for insisting men excuse themselves from, and not wait for, compromised, mitigated and I daresay now, unenthusiastic sex.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When I wrote this it was an effort in illustrating a pragmatic approach to save men the time and resources of investing in a less than optimal sexual experience. In essence, it’s a rule to help men avoid negotiated, unenthusiastic sex with women who feel obligated to fuck him. Whether it’s ostensibly from pity or duty or some other pretense the outcome is still the same.

In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!

The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.

As ever, the intent here is to determine the potential for genuine enthusiastic sex – if there’s no interest, or hesitant acceptance: NEXT.

At the time of my writing these posts I was castigated for exactly the same rationale that femosphere bloggers are now endorsing Yes Means Yes with today. The (now scrubbed from certain blogs) criticism then was one of how terrible it was for Men to punish women by not playing along with feminine-primary Game.

Only two years ago the criticism was, “What? You just want some whore who gives it up on the first night?”

However, under the Yes Means Yes initiative, this Three Strikes pragmatism is flipped and endorsed by the women who were previously outraged by it. YMY fosters a social environment which actively promotes Pump and Dump sexual encounters, since the furtherance of that sexual relationship into an LTR increases the risk and liabilities that are the result of the YMY threat point.

Commenter jf12 from last week’s thread:

YMY makes a good case for men abandoning what women consider to be their assortative equals, i.e. women who are older, crankier, and more likely to say no, for women who are younger, nicer, and more likely to say yes. YMY is a total green light for men to push for sex immediately if not sooner.

So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy? In an age when Sheryl Sandberg is openly telling young women to fuck the Bad Boys, and settle down with the Nice Guy before her SMV decays into non-competitiveness, when open hypergamy is not only embraced, but proudly preached in the media, what logical choice do men have but to push for sex immediately and go their own way?

YMY combined with Open Hypergamy promote a sexual marketplace based on enthusiastic consent for Alpha Fucks, and mitigated, ambiguous consent for Beta Bucks. Now add to this environment the effects and behaviors inherent with women’s Ovulatory Shift on a monthly basis and we can begin to see the latent purpose behind Yes Means Yes – insurance against regrettable sexual behavior.

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ’empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates. As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry. Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away; if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study”‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.

It appears that for whatever reason the manosphere topic du jour of last week has turned some fresh light on the debate regarding the validity of the concept of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. In between reposting HuffPo articles and any pop-psychology pablum that agrees with her ego-investments, Aunt Giggles seems to have decided to reject reality and replace it with her own (you expected something else?), more comforting, fantasies she finds catharsis in. If readers want to sift through the pop-up ads and fem.mgid links to get the gist of her ‘reasons’ why she believes AFBB is some viral manosphere myth, feel free to head over to her Hooking Up Betas echo chamber and brush up on it.

If you want the short version it’s basically this; in her 5 years of blogging all of the 7 or 8 unmoderated commenters she consistently allows to reinforce her own perspectives have told her that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is bunk. So there you have it, myth busted! This is kind of surprising since the concept of Hypergamy she so reluctantly conceded to essentially contradicts this, but as with all things Giggles, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again….or, whatever the sponsors want her to be for.

All digs aside the epic comment thread from last week’s post went in all manner of direction, but it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

It’s the Alpha that the widows pine for. It’s the Alpha who’s the culprit for all the feminine imperative’s woes. It’s that damn Alpha who gives her the tingles, but so frustratingly won’t submit commit to her imperatives – why can’t they just play nice, like a good Beta will? It’s the Alpha that women write songs for.

The Process

During last week’s comment thread Dr. J reminded me of the process of breaking down a behavioral dynamic. The distilled version of that process is as follows:

Biological —> Psychological —> Sociological.

This is a valuable progression to remember when it comes to understanding whys of red pill dynamics. When there’s a breakdown in understanding a particular dynamic, or even a willful refusal to understand it, at some stage there is a failure to make the connection between these realms.

Just for sake of a neutral illustration here lets take the dynamic of hunger. Biologically we get hungry, our bodies need nurishment, and thanks to our evolved genetics, and the scarcity of food in our evolutionary past, we tend to prefer certain types of energy rich food over others. Psychologically we might develop the conviction to train ourselves to eat right and exercise, or we might develop various personal rationalizations for why we’re OK with being fat . Sociologically this dynamic extends into the obesity epidemic society is now facing, and depending upon the predominance of a particular individualized psychology the social manifestation may be a Fat Acceptance movement or a cultural obsession with physical fitness.

Granted, this is a simplistic illustration which becomes more complex as more dynamics are layered upon others – For instance both Fat Acceptance and physical fitness psychology are also rooted in the capacity to optimize hypergamy for women (a biological imperative) as well as having implications and purposes for other social conventions.

If there is a problem in really understanding a red pill truth, if there is a resistance (willful or otherwise) to that understanding, or even if there is a some doubt about a social dynamic that needs testing to explain, there is usually either a denial of, or a lack of connection to, a realm in this progression. With regard to blue pill critics and those with ego-investments in their mindset, denying or downplaying the importance of certain aspects of these realms is necessary to protect those mindsets. Sometimes one realm may be discounted altogether in order to maintain an ego-investment.

So it’s with this progression in mind that we have to really deconstruct the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, as well as it’s male-specific counterpart the Madonna / Whore dynamic.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Bucks

From a biologically imperative starting point the AFBB dynamic is easily provable in women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. If Aunt Giggles or any other doubter needs evidence of the biological motivators of AFBB, look no further than the provable behavioral prompts of women’s menstrual cycle. I covered the more Game-tactical aspects of this in Your Friend Menstruation, but study after study prove that women’s behaviors, sexual appetites and mate preference selections coincide with the particular ovulatory phase a woman happens to be in and how best to satisfy it at that stage.

As a feminine social directive, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, is the social extension of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. This strategy is literally encoded into women’s neurological firmware and endocrine systems. This ovulatory influence in mate preference that describes this pluralism is well documented, as are other manifestations such as:

In a biological realm, there is little doubt that a directive towards a sexually pluralistic sexual strategy would be the most pragmatic reason for these behavioral manifestations. The female biological condition prompts sexual pluralism, which further prompts the social condition of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks (essentially cuckoldry) as the most practical solution to the problem that optimized Hypergamy presents in finding a male who best embodies the ideal of both. Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents.

Madonnas and Whores

There is a counterpart to this dynamic in Men – the Madonna / Whore dynamic. You might know this dynamic as the Madonna/Whore “Complex” since feminine-primary society likes to repeat the term in an effort to pathologize the male analogy of optimizing his own sexual strategy. This marginalization is of course to be expected if women’s sexual strategy and hypergamic selectivity is to be socially ensured.

Again, Dr. J offers us a good breakdown of the comparison of sexual strategies:

Here is how I conceptualize it… On one hand, there are equivalences:

1) Men prefer “madonnas” for long-term commitments, and “whores” for short-term mating.

3) Both, ideally “want it all” in one person. The male ideal is the “virgin wife who is a slut only for them” – madonna and whore. The female ideal is the alpha stud who settles down and becomes a provider for her – fux and bux.

4) If “both in one” is not an option, then women may get short-term fux from an alpha cad, and long-term commitment bux from a beta dad – alpha fux and beta bux (AFBB). Similarly, men may have a primary, virginal wife to assure paternity, then a “slut on the side” for kicks – virgin validation and slut excitation (VVSE).

Because the sexes also complement each other, there is also some mirroring. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thus:

A) Male’s are primarily rated for their provisioning value, women for their sexual value, in long-term commitment.

B) Either are perceived to be low-worth when they give away that primary value too quickly.

C) Thus, “virgins” and “alphas” are often perceived as high value, while “sluts” and “betas” are often perceived as low value.

This creates a conflict with the four points above when:

I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

As with AFFB you have to begin in the biological realm to understand men’s sexual strategy and move through the psychological to get to the social. The Madonna / Whore dynamic isn’t too hard to understand when you consider men’s sexual imperative stimulated by the realities of 12.5 times the amount of testosterone women experience. A while back on Sunshine Mary’s blog the topic was an effort in trying to understand (more like verify the fact) that men sexually evaluate a woman within the first glance of a woman. From an intersocial standpoint this fact (dubiously) offends women in that it smacks of some learned (psychological/sociological) tendency to objectify women. However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

Male Hypergamy

I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy. If there is it’s the want to optimize a balance in the ideal monogamous wife, supportive mother for his children, and a woman he (mistakenly) believes has the capacity to love him as he believes a woman could, and the dirty, porn star who represents unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Lets be clear this want for masculine hypergamy doesn’t have anything near the biological impetus that women’s physicality prompts them to – we simply don’t have the same plumbing or firmware – and rather his hypergamy is rooted in a rational frustration of trying to balance sexual availability with his potential for investing himself emotionally in a woman.

It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

Before I finish up here I wanted to add my take on the husband of the Whore/Prude wife from last week’s post. A lot of guys (and one convenient feminist) said he should’ve seen it coming, or he never should’ve signed on for marrying a woman who didn’t have a genuine desire to fuck him like the secret porn star she used to be. In a perfect world where we have absolute clarity and foresight is 20/20 that maybe, but if I had to speculate, my guess is that he was trying to do what he thought and had been conditioned to think was right. He married a Madonna, and very likely an attractive one he thought he could do no better by, in the hopes she would “come around” and be at least a satisfactory whore for him alone.

How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother? The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time. From a red pill perspective we can say he should’ve seen the signs, but we’re dealing with a blue pill man plugged into the Matrix trying to balance the Madonna / Whore dynamic with blinders on.

Late Edit: For further analysis, linked here is the most recent followup reddit post of the (very real) husband of porn tape wife from last week’s post.

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.

If the “postponement” of the ABC 20/20 manosphere “exposé” has taught us anything it’s that the writers seeking to cast light on the manosphere are looking for crazy. They need crazy because it’s the only thing they know how, or have the patience, to confront in as minimal an effort as it takes to type a few paragraphs dismissing it as misogyny.

Writers (vichy male writers) like R. Tod Kelly are also lazy. They see an opportunity for outrage and that sells advertising. They wanted Stormfront and what they got was a global consortium of rational, well reasoned men with jobs, families and intelligence, men from all walks of life, all ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressing ideas that don’t fit into an acculturation of feminine primacy.

If you read Matt Forney’s 20/20 interview post you’ll see the desperation for crazy in their producer’s attempts to provoke him to become what they think he should be – a frothing, angry, hate-fueled misogynist. That would make it easy for them, they know how to sell crazy. The copy gets approved, the crazies get marginalized and we move on to the next Mabeline commercial.

But they didn’t get crazy from Matt, or Roosh (OK Paul Elam looks a bit like Charles Manson in a certain light), they got well reasoned, sensibility that was hard to argue against, so they attempted to prompt the crazy by barraging Roosh with questions about rape in the hopes that he’d blow up. He wouldn’t. They wanted it to be easy. They wanted to know all they needed to know about the manosphere by sourcing Manboobz, interviewing 3 manosphere bloggers and then trot out the crazy, show off the carnival freak, demonize and marginalize him and frog march the crazy off the stage. They wanted fringe, the easy kind of fringe that their journalism, communications and women’s studies classes taught them the easy answers to confront it with.

But the manosphere isn’t fringe. For as much as R. Tod Kelly, or the producers at ABC would like it to be, the manosphere is too broad, too comprehensive, too diverse for anyone unfamiliar with it to really understand it, much less deliver an unbiased objective opinion of it. So Kelly follows formula and makes the same lame attempts at simple aspersion and misogynistic dismissal 20/20 had already failed in doing (as evidenced by their show postponement). The Daily Beast wanted its formulaic red meat, but Kelly is just dishing out ABC’s cold left-overs.

Anger is a Gift

One of the more common criticisms lobbed at the manosphere in general is that the men contributing and commenting are just angry.

It’s the easiest reaction for men and women conditioned to feminine-primacy to retort with. If men are just “bitter”, “burned” and “angry” it absolve them of really having to think critically about what those men are proposing. Anger is one of those easy answers for people who don’t want to be exposed to things that either they don’t have a real answer for (such as JBY) or are too comfortable in their ego-investments that they don’t want to be forced into any kind of introspection that might challenge them.

So the manosphere is just a collection of angry men, shaking their virtual fists and venting their frustrations about their loser status, their tough luck or being on the sharp end of the SMP.

“There’s a lot of anger towards women in the manosphere. These misogynists think all women are evil bitches out to take half their money, steal their children and force them into indentured servitude. I pity them, really I do.”

Most appeals to anger read like some variation of this. While being an easy retort, playing the anger card is also a very useful social convention for the feminine in that it’s so culturally embedded that it’s men who display the most anger and therefore more believable. Anger is the perfect disqualifier for the feminine. Accusing a man of misogyny will always be more believable than accusing a woman of misandry because men are always just angrier than women.

Beyond the quick and easy dismissal of anger about anything even marginally critical a man might say about the feminine is an underlying conditioning that prompts people to it. By that I mean, to the majority of blue-pill plugged in people, anything critical of the feminine, by default, is rooted in anger. We can link this to women’s default status of victimhood, but even relating the most objective observation of behaviors, psychology or social constructs pertaining to the feminine in anything less than a flattering light is automatically suspect of a male anger bias.

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

It’s easy for women and blue-pill men to discourage a Man from red-pill self-improvement by convincing him he’ll turn into an angry Jerk who no woman would want to get with, but the truth is that learning Game isn’t the positively life altering revelation it is because it begins from a root anger. It’s successful because Men have a motivation to move past the anger or despondency that comes from a better understanding of the hows and whys of the feminine. They want a better life for themselves and the women they engage with. Whether that means upping a guy’s notch count or finding a woman worthy of his attentions and provisioning for monogamy, Men realize that their betterment with women and themselves doesn’t begin with anger, or hate, or crazy.

A little over fifteen years ago my wife was pregnant with Bebé Tomassi. For most of her adult life Mrs. Tomassi has been a medical professional (radiology) so when she was knocked up she and her girl-friends at the hospital would take any free moment they got to sneak into the ultrasound room a have a peek at our gestating daughter. As a result we have about 4 times as many ultrasound pics as most other couples get. I actually have images of Bebé as a multi-celled organism.

It was during one of these impromptu scannings that we discovered what gender our child would be. We were both more than a bit impatient and didn’t want to wait for the silly build up the OBGYN would make of revealing her gender, so we hit up a girl-friend of my wife to do another ultrasound around the right trimester.

She scanned for a bit and said, “Oh yeah, you’ve got a girl.” We asked how she could be so sure and she said, “Her hands aren’t in the right place.” We were like WTF? Then she explained, “Almost always when the baby is a boy his hands will be down around his crotch once he’s matured to a certain phase in the pregnancy. There’s not much to do in there, so they play with themselves. Your daughter’s hands are usually up around her face.”

After hearing this, it was at that point I began to appreciate the power of testosterone. Whenever I read someone tell me sex isn’t really a “need”, I think about how even in the womb the influence of testosterone is there. For better or worse, our lives as Men center on our capacity to control, unleash, mitigate and direct that influence. Socially we build up appropriate conventions intended to bind it into some kind of uniformity, to prevent the destructive potential and exploit its constructive potential – while personally we develop convictions, psychologies and internalized rules by order of degree to live our lives with its influence always running in the background of our subconsciousness.

Experience

Women become very indignant when trying to understand the male experience. This is due in most part to women’s innate solipsism and their presumption that their experience is the universal one. Part of this presumption is due to social reinforcement, but that social presumption – essentially the equalist presumption – is rooted in women’s base indifference to anything external that doesn’t affect them directly and personally. If everyone is essentially the same and equal, and we’re acculturated to encourage this perspective, it leaves women to interpret their imperatives and innate solipsism to be the normative for men.

So it often comes with a lot shock and indignation (which women instinctively crave) when women are forced, sometimes rudely, to acknowledge that men’s experience doesn’t reflect their own. The reactive response is to force-fit men’s experience into women’s solipsistic interpretations of what it should be according to a feminine-primary perception of what works best for women. On an individual woman’s level this amounts to denial and rejection of a legitimate male-primary experience through shame or implied fem-centric obligations to accept and adopt her experience as his responsibility. On a social level this conflict is reflected in social conventions and feminine-centric social doctrines, as well as being written directly into binding laws that forcibly enact a feminine-centric perspective into our social fabric.

Feminine solipsism and the primacy of the female experience superseding the male experience begins with the individual woman (micro) and extrapolates into a feminine primary social construct (macro).

Virtually every conflict between the sexes comes back to the rejection of the legitimacy of the male experience. As I’ve stated in the past, for one sex to realize their own sexual imperative, the other sex must sacrifice their own. In virtually every dynamic I’ve ever written about the fundamental lack of understanding the male experience influences women’s perception of our sex. Whether it’s understanding our sexual impulse, our idealizations of love, or appreciating the sacrifices men uniquely make to facilitate a feminine reality, the disconnect always distills down to a fundamental lack of appreciating the legitimacy of the male experience.

It would be too easy a cop out to simply write this disconnect off as an existential difference. Obviously men and women cannot spend time in each other’s skin to directly appreciate the experience of the other. However, since the Feminine Imperative is the normative one in our current social makeup the presumption is that a feminine directed ‘equalism’ is the only legitimate experience. Thus the masculine experience is, by default, delegitimized, if not vilified for simply reminding the feminine that inherent, evolved sexual differences challenge equalism by masculinity’s very presence.

I reject your reality and replace it with my own…

Men just being men is a passive challenge to the feminine imperative; red pill awareness is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a feminine primary experience. It’s important to recall here that the primacy of the female experience begins on the personal level with an individual woman and then exponentially multiplies into a social (macro) scale. When you assert yourself as a red pill Man, you are asserting your disconnection from that feminine-primary frame. This begins on a personal level for a woman, and then extrapolates into a social affront for all women.

The initial shock (and indignation) is one of interrupting her comfortable, predictable expectations of men in the feminine defined, solipsistic reality she experiences for herself. As even the most rookie of red pill Men will attest, the legitimate female experience rejects this assertion, most times with an amount of hostility. As expected, Men are met with the socially reinforced, prepared responses designed to defend against attempts to question the legitimacy of the primacy of the feminine experience – shaming is often the first recourse, even most passive challenges warrant shaming, but character assassination and disqualifications based upon a feminine primary perspective are the go-to weapons of the solipsistic nature of the feminine mindset (even when men are the ones subscribing to it).

The next weapon in the feminine psychological arsenal is histrionics. Aggrandized exaggerations and overblown straw man tactics may seem like a last resort for women to the man attempting to rationally impose his red pill, legitimized, male experience, but know histrionics for what they are – a carefully design, feminine-specific and socially approved failsafe for women. In the same vein as a Woman’s Prerogative (women can change their minds) and the Feminine Mystique, female histrionics are a legitimized and socially excusable tactic with the latent purpose of protecting a woman’s solipsistic experience. She’s an emotional creature and your challenge to her ego only brings out the hysteric in her – it’s men’s fault that they don’t get it, and it’s men’s fault for bringing it out in her by challenging her solipsism. And thus is she excused from her protective histrionics at men’s cost.

It’s important for red pill Men to understand what their presence, much less their assertions, mean to the feminine; their very existence, just their questioning, represents a challenge to individual, ego-invested feminine solipsism. Always be prepared for the inevitable defense of a woman’s solipsism. Even in the most measured approach, you are essentially breaking a woman’s self-concept by reminding or asserting that her experience is not the universal experience. There’s a temptation for red pill Men to get comfortable with a woman’s who accepts red pill truths, only to find that her solipsism has only accepted the parts of those truths that its comfortable with and benefits from. That solipsism doesn’t die once she’s acknowledged the legitimacy of your experience, anymore than your sexual imperative dies if you accept her experience as the legitimate one.

I’m going to relate a real story of a good friend of mine here as an illustration of a larger dynamic.

My friend Rob was what most guys would call a ‘natural Alpha’ in his younger days; fit, smart in an unlearned kind of way, and to the guys who couldn’t appreciate his straightforwardness, he had the Alpha ‘attitude’ that made him kind of an asshole to the people who didn’t know him. He was in the military for a bit right out of high school and that seemed to work well for him since he learned to be a damn good airframe mechanic and parlayed that into a pretty good career for a while.

Although he was a natural Alpha, Rob’s approach to women was very much conditioned by the influence of the feminine imperative. He had girls who were attracted to him, but he had a tendency for ONEitis so once he’d locked on to Kim that was his focus. He would say “I would do anything and everything for the right girl” because that was his belief, sacrifice and support were his mandates before they’d even met. Eventually she ‘accidentally’ became pregnant when they were both 19.

Rob’s ONEitis took on the predictable sense of masculine purpose to “do the right thing” when she told him the news. They were young, and even 20+ years ago he was aware that couples married young had a very low ‘success’ rate, but as expected he believed he and his soon to be wife would be the exception to that rule. Whether it was his predisposition for ONEitis or his righteous ‘natural’ Alpha stubbornness, at 19 he was determined to be a good father and husband.

Kim was always the less enthusiastic partner in the marriage, but she wasn’t going to have an abortion, and while she was uncertain about Rob’s future potential at 19 she married him. 5 years later they had two daughters and then a son 2 years after that. I would describe their marriage as one of convenience except that Rob genuinely loved Kim and the kids. His Alpha attitude only drove him on that much further as a good provider, but as Kim and he entered their early 30’s and their older children became more self-sufficient it was becoming clear that she was subtly and indifferently distancing herself from Rob.

At about 29 Kim went to work in a middle management position. Up until then she’d been a stay-at-home mom, but with the kids in school (except their youngest) she wanted to get into working. For having 3 children Kim was in exceptionally good shape (too good of shape in hindsight), Rob had put on a few pounds, but still had his upper body muscularity. Kim was at the gym and work more than she was at home now, and it was something that even heroic-ONEitis Rob was beginning to be annoyed with.

Kim had new friendships at work now, mostly single women in their mid to late 20’s while Kim was almost 31. All of her new work girlfriends were single and wanting her to come out with them for drinks after work. They didn’t call them GNOs (girls night out) but this is what they were without calling them such. Dutiful Rob would look after the kids and content himself with beer and movies at home. Even as this became a more common occurrence Rob still clung to the heroic, supportive, father/husband/provider role. Rob still wasn’t what anyone would call a Beta, but in his ONEitis devotion and his increasing domestic role this is what Kim saw in him.

Kim went from living vicariously through her 20’s girlfriends’ weekend stories, to watching them from the sidelines at the clubs, to actively engaging in their escapades. I’m sure most readers know where this is going, and yes Kim eventually cheated on Rob. I had the dubious, but serious, honor of talking him out of murdering both Kim and a co-worker guy she’d hooked up with at 4am after he’d tracked them both to the motel they ended up at that night. He had the kids in the car with him the whole time we were on the phone.

Missing Out

I’m presenting this story, not as some precautionary tale to scare you into not marrying early so much as to better understand the other side of doing so. Anyone who’s read my blog long enough knows I advocate men not even becoming seriously monogamous until after the age of 30. I realize that for most men this is a pretty tall order, and for most guys untenable, but the principle is that men need to realize and actualize their SMV potential before they can accurately assess their true role in the SMP, and then, evaluate the quality of any woman they’d want to become monogamous with according to their Game awareness.

My friend Rob never made that connection and lived (and still lives) by what an adolescent social skill set and his feminized conditioning had taught him. Rob was enraged about the infidelity, but he took Kim back, they went to the ubiquitous marriage counseling, and attempted the typical negotiations of Kim’s genuine desire for Rob. Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20’s”, Kim’s Hypergamy didn’t care.

At this point, Kim’s leaving Rob was just a formality, but the end came when Rob had an on-the-job injury to his back and he could no longer perform his job. He got pretty good disability, but it wasn’t what Kim had built up to making. Blood was in the water, and Kim went feral. Eventually she took the kids and left Rob to his own means, while she moved half a state away to “find herself” and get into the scene she missed in her 20’s.

For the men in the manosphere who want to use Game as a means to locking down an idealized wife, a lot gets made about marrying (or becoming monogamous) with a woman while she’s young – preferably in or just before her peak SMV years (18-24). Generally the idea is that if you can get to her early enough – before she rides the infamous cock carousel – and she’s cut from the right cloth for monogamy, then by way of a guy being the (hopefully) first Alpha she’s encountered, she’ll solidly pair-bond with him – bearing him healthy children in her fertilely prime years and remain his emotionally bonded, loyal and devoted wife for a lifetime.

I like this fantasy, as I’m sure most idealistic men would. In fact it might even be realistic for a guy in his peak SMV years (30-36) to pull this off with the right amount of status and Amused Mastery if his own value is well established. However, as per the story of Rob and Kim here, there is another risk to the ‘marry young’ scenario and that’s what I call the Left Behind dynamic.

Left Behind

In contemporary western society, even the most farm-raised, home schooled of girls are still going to be incessantly bombarded by the ‘be all you can be’ (previously ‘you can have it all’) social advertising the Feminine Imperative has for girls. Raising a daughter in such times (and I speak from experience) is fraught with risks of appearing to be limiting her potential while attempting educate her about the real limitations of women’s fast-burn SMV and the choices she’ll have to make very early in her life that will affect her later life once she’s past those peak years. I should add that for a father to even hint at these limitations publicly makes him instantly guilty of misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege oppression and every other male-crime the Feminine Imperative has a long established name for. However, even mothers will be accused of being domineered by that patriarchal mindset for attempting to educate their daughters about the real limitations of being a woman today and choosing between different life paths.

With this as the foundation, the inherent risk of finding, not to mention wifing-up, the ideal young girl, predisposed to marriage (unplanned pregnancies not withstanding) is that as a she matures, a woman begins to question the choices she made. While it’s almost a cliché now to breakdown the life path that led to the regret of never-married or divorced aging spinsters in the age of career women, the other side of that coin is the early-married woman contemplating ‘her life that could’ve been’ and the motivation to change her path. It’s easy to find fault with women who delayed accepting a marriage proposal for their own SMV convenience or self-interest, but it’s the early-married Kim’s of the world who are far more susceptible to the Eat, Pray, Love script as they approach the downslide of their SMV.

Ironically it’s the same feminine-primary social influence that encourages ‘be all you can be’ (and demeans her for not living up to her girl-power potential) that also embraces her when she re-plots her life course after leaving the husband of her youth. Mix in her single and divorced friends’ encouragement with fem-centric social promptings and top it off with an innate Hypergamy that never stops subconsciously asking “is this guy the best you can do?” after 12 years of marriage and you can see why she’d feel left behind.

As a Game aware, red pill Man it’s imperative that you consider both sides of a woman’s choices and adjust your Game accordingly. Half the reason I made the rough attempt at graphing the SMP and men and women’s SMV’s respective to each gender’s age is so men could predict and expect the behaviors, mindsets and social variables women will be susceptible to at various phases of their lives. It is, however, important, to consider the choices women have made in the lives they led before and after they meet you. It’s becoming increasingly too easy for men to think, “damn, if only I’d have met her when she was younger and inexperienced, she’d be more attached to me now.” This isn’t always the case.